Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41533750›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026

Information extraction from clinical notes: are we ready to switch to large language models?

Yan Hu, Xu Zuo, Yujia Zhou, Xueqing Peng, Jimin Huang, Vipina K Keloth, Vincent J Zhang, Ruey-Ling Weng, Cathy Shyr, Qingyu Chen and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. LitTx: A New Treatment Relation Extraction Dataset.LREC ... International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation : [proceedings]. International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Yan HuMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-2413-5918
Xu ZuoMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Yujia ZhouDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Xueqing PengDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Jimin HuangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Vipina K KelothDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6919-1122
Vincent J ZhangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Ruey-Ling WengDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Cathy ShyrDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37203, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7466-0034
Qingyu ChenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Xiaoqian JiangMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9933-2205
Kirk E RobertsMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Hua XuDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5274-4672

Funding

Leveraging Longitudinal Data and Informatics Technology to Understand the Role of Bilingualism in Cognitive Resilience, Aging and DementiaR01AG080429 · NIA · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Michelle L Dossett, HUA XU · 2023 to 2026
$5.5M
Detecting synergistic effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for AD/ADRDR01AG078154 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI HUA XU, RUI ZHANG · 2022 to 2026
$4.2M
Facilitate Observational Studies of Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias Using Ontology and Natural Language ProcessingRF1AG072799 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI LIU, HONGFANG, TAO, CUI · 2021 to 2021
$2.4M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG078154NIA NIH HHS R01AG078154NIA NIH HHS R01 AG080429NIA NIH HHS R01AG080429NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG072799NIA NIH HHS RF1AG072799
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the performance, generalizability, and computational efficiency of instruction-tuned Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA)-2 and LLaMA-3 models compared to bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) for clinical information extraction (IE) tasks, specifically named entity recognition (NER) and relation extraction (RE). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe developed a comprehensive annotated corpus of 1588 clinical notes from 4 data sources-UT Physicians (UTP) (1342 notes), Transcribed Medical Transcription Sample Reports and Examples (MTSamples) (146), Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III (50), and Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) (50), capturing 4 clinical entities (problems, tests, medications, other treatments) and 16 modifiers (eg, negation, certainty). Large Language Model Meta AI-2 and LLaMA-3 were instruction-tuned for clinical NER and RE, and their performance was benchmarked against BERT.

resultsLarge Language Model Meta AI models consistently outperformed BERT across datasets. In data-rich settings (eg, UTP), LLaMA achieved marginal gains (approximately 1% improvement for NER and 1.5%-3.7% for RE). Under limited data conditions (eg, MTSamples, MIMIC-III) and on the unseen i2b2 dataset, LLaMA-3-70B improved F1 scores by over 7% for NER and 4% for RE. However, performance gains came with increased computational costs, with LLaMA models requiring more memory and Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) hours and running up to 28 times slower than BERT. DISCUSSION: While LLaMA models offer enhanced performance, their higher computational demands and slower throughput highlight the need to balance performance with practical resource constraints. Application-specific considerations are essential when choosing between LLMs and BERT for clinical IE.

conclusionInstruction-tuned LLaMA models show promise for clinical NER and RE tasks. However, the tradeoff between improved performance and increased computational cost must be carefully evaluated. We release our Kiwi package (https://kiwi.clinicalnlp.org/) to facilitate the application of both LLaMA and BERT models in clinical IE applications.

Indexed as

Data MiningElectronic Health RecordsInformation Storage and RetrievalLarge Language ModelsNatural Language ProcessingHumansinformation extractioninstruction-tuninglarge language model

Identifiers

PMID41533750
PMCPMC12981642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.